By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.

Of course you've heard of "liar loans"—in the heyday of subprime mortgages, unscrupulous lenders handed out mortgages to practically everyone with a pulse. "So you're saying you make $100,000 a year? Great, check this box titled 'McMansion.'"

We all know how this charade ended. Now Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D., an acclaimed expert on the subject of Obamacare, warns that the delay of the employer mandate by one year will force Americans into a single-payer system, raising insurance premiums and encouraging "liar subsidies" that might prove fiscally devastating. Not to mention that under the new health care system, you may well end up dead…

Dan Steinhart

Editor, Casey Research

Obamacare is a hodgepodge of new regulations, requirements, and penalties. I'd like to start by defining three terms, which, while obscure today, should begin to enter our everyday vocabulary as Obamacare continues to take effect:

Health insurance exchanges are the basket of qualified insurance policies that meet the new healthcare law requirements for expanded coverage. These may be set up by the states (many are refusing to do so, due to high cost and fear of bankrupting the state) or the federal government. The Exchanges are supposed to be fully operational by October 1, 2013, but it is questionable whether they will actually be in place by that deadline.

The individual mandate requires that individuals purchase health insurance that meets the new, expanded federal requirements. Individuals who do not comply face a financial penalty. Individuals who fall below minimum income levels will be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance.

The employer mandate requires that businesses with more than 50 full-time employees must provide health insurance for all employees, and that insurance must meet the new standards set forth in the new law. Businesses that do not comply must pay a financial penalty for each employee, which for large companies can run into the millions of dollars annually. This is the piece of Obamacare that has been delayed by one year.

Selective Enforcement

Why delay one component of Obamacare and not the others? More specifically, why delay the employer mandate but not the individual mandate?

To answer that question, we must first understand this fact: Obama wants a single-payer healthcare system in the US.

This is not a secret:

Barack Obama, 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer healthcare system for America, but as all of you know, we may not get there immediately."

Barack Obama, 2007: "But I don't think we will be able to eliminate employer-based coverage immediately. There is potentially going to be some transition time."

These quotes are not taken out of context. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that transitioning to a single-payer system has been Obama's and his cohorts' ultimate goal all along:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), 2009: "Next to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public option. He said it would not let private insurance companies compete. A public option would put the private insurance companies out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right!"

Here, Rep. Schakowsky is suggesting that the "public option" will lead to their desired goal of a single-payer healthcare system. Single-payer proponents no longer use this term, since the public has clearly and consistently opposed it.

The "public option" has been renamed "Medicaid expansion," which serves the public-relations purpose of confusing the public and avoiding calling taxpayer-funded healthcare "single payer."

Jacob S. Hacker (Yale Professor), 2008: "Someone once said to me this is a Trojan Horse for single payer. It's not a Trojan Horse, right? It's right there! I am telling you. We are going to get there. Over time. Slowly. But we are going to move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should, but we will do it in a way that we are not going to frighten people into thinking they are going to lose their private insurance. We will give them a choice of public or private insurance when they are in the pool. We are going to let them keep their private insurance as long as their employer continues to provide it."

Hacker nicely sums up the underlying goals of Obamacare: not to increase competition or patient choice, but to drive people out of private insurance as a stepping stone to a government-run, single-payer system.

Stepping Stone to Single-Payer

Knowing Obama and his cohorts' goals, the purpose behind the delay of the employer mandate seems clearer: to hurry the "transition time" away from employer-based health insurance and to a single-payer system.

By forcing individuals to purchase compliant healthcare plans but not forcing employers to provide those plans, Obama is creating a swell of 10-13 million workers that must enroll in health insurance, but cannot obtain it from their employers. These workers thus have no choice but to use the government-controlled health insurance exchanges, or else pay a financial penalty.

This represents a doubling of the number of workers forced to get health insurance on the exchanges.

Importantly, the IRS has ruled that if workers have access to affordable health insurance through their employer, their dependents are not eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies on the Obamacare health insurance exchanges.

Now that businesses will not be required to offer health insurance until 2015, workers and their dependents will be eligible for taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase health insurance on the exchanges.

This will cost taxpayers an estimated $60 billion dollars in 2014 alone to cover the increased costs of subsidies—and the loss of revenue from employer penalties.

This $60 billion figure is before we take into account the "liar subsidies" that will invariably occur now that the administration has quietly removed eligibility verification for taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Community organizers are already being hired around the country to sign people up for the health exchanges. There are no penalties for failing to verify eligibility, and no penalties for signing up people who cannot afford to pay the monthly insurance premiums.

It is set up for disaster, much like the "liar loans" that helped topple the mortgage industry when people were not required to verify their income to qualify for a mortgage.

Remember, by enacting the dual mandates, Obamacare ostensibly was designed to ensure that its costs were borne by businesses, not taxpayers. But when the president decided to enforce only certain portions of the healthcare law and delay others, he shifted the cost of health insurance onto the backs of taxpayers.

This is all on top of the burdensome costs Obamacare has already created. Various studies have projected that private insurance premiums will rise between 20 to 60% in 2014, and some as much as 100%.

How long will the private-insurance market survive with such exploding costs? People will not be able to afford such massive premium increases. That seems to be the point: drive up costs and drive everyone into the arms of government-controlled medical care.

Jeff Smith from Seattle summed it up nicely in a Wall Street Journal letter on June 12:

"I was going to leave my job… to start a business until I shopped around for a healthcare plan: At Group Health, a health-maintenance organization in Seattle, I was given a quote of $842 per month for me and my family. But that would increase to $2,320 starting in January 2014 when Obamacare kicks in—a 276% increase. Why? Because I would be forced to carry coverage I don't want and don't need, such as maternity care. Welcome to the world of socialized medicine, courtesy of the Un-Affordable Care Act."

How Obamacare Affects You and Your Medical Care

The delay in the employer mandate is but one of dozens of negative impacts Obamacare will have on your medical services. As an independent physician, I've been discussing these issues with my patients for the past few years, helping them to prepare for what's ahead.

Here are the ten most important points that I tell my patients:

Your private insurance premiums will cost more and more each year.

You will lose the choices and flexibility in health insurance policies that we have had available up until now.

As reimbursements continue to drop, fewer and fewer doctors will take Medicare (for those 65 and older) or Medicaid (people younger than 65).

Fewer doctors accepting Medicare and Medicaid causes an increase in wait times for appointments and a decrease in the numbers and types of specialists available on these plans. Consumers would be wise to line up their doctors now.

Studies from various organizations and states have consistently shown that Medicaid recipients have longer waits for medical care, fewer options for specialists, poorer medical outcomes, and die sooner after surgeriesthan people with no health insurance at all. Yet an increasing number of Americans will be forced into this second-class medical care.

As more people enter the taxpayer-funded plans (Medicare and Medicaid) instead of paying for private insurance, the costs to provide this increased medical care and medications will escalate, leading to higher taxes.

With no eligibility verifications in place, millions of people who are in the US illegally will be able to access taxpayer-funded medical services, making longer lines, longer wait times, and less money available for medical care for American citizens… unless taxes are increased even more.

Higher expenditures to provide medical services lead to rationing of medical care and treatment options to reduce costs. This is the mandated function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board: to cut costs by deciding which types of medical services to allow… or disallow.If you are denied treatment, you have no appeal of IPAB decisions; you are simply out of luck, and possibly out of life. This is a radical departure from the appeals process required for all private health insurance plans. Further, the IPAB is accountable only to President Obama, and cannot be overridden by Congress or the courts. IPAB is designed to have the final word on your health.

Under current regulations, if medical care is denied by Medicare, then a patient isnot allowed to pay cash to a Medicare-contracted physician or hospital or other health professional. Patients who need medical care that is denied under Medicare or Medicaid will find themselves having to either: 1) look for an independent physician or hospital (quite rare these days); or 2) go outside the USA for treatment.

Expect a loss of medical privacy. Beginning in 2014, if you participate in government health insurance, your health records will be sent to a centralized federal database, with or without your consent.

The bottom line is that Americans are losing more and more of their medical freedom. By 2015, so many workers will be trapped in the government-run health insurance exchanges that there will be no going back to the private plans we have today. At this rate, single-payer proponents will drive private insurance companies out of business, which has been their intention all along.

Americans need to become far more proactive about taking charge of their health. The healthier you are, the less vulnerable you are to our degrading healthcare system. It's also wise to consider proactively planning for medical treatment options outside the US.

Dr. Vliet will share her thoughts on what Obamacare will do to medical freedom and privacy—and the steps Americans can take now to preserve both—at the upcoming Casey Research Summit 3 Days with Casey, October 4-6 in Tucson, Arizona.

Aside from Dr. Vliet, our blue-ribbon faculty includes keynote speaker Dr. Ron Paul, economic and investment experts Catherine Austin Fitts, Lacy Hunt, James Rickards, John Mauldin, Rick Rule, Chris Martenson, and many more. Most of the speakers have agreed to attend the conference for the entire three days and mingle with the participants.

Comments

Good post,
The horror of this bill will only become plain to the other half of the public once it is FULLY put into practice or by people like you educating them about how sick this Obama "care" is.
Don't listen to the socialist posters, they either have not read the bill, like more then half the public or are political hacks with out the facts.

P.S.
this is important to people here because it will effect the economy in a very negative way

Explain the "horror of this bill" in factual terms not simply a vitriolic hatred of President Obama and everything he does. I posted the facts of Obamacare versus Romneycare on Aug. 3. Here's a chart which compares the two.

Comparison chart

Obamacare Romneycare
Individual mandate: Yes Yes
Penalty for not buying insurance: Minimum of $695 a year Minimum of $1,200 a year

Employer mandate: Yes for companies with over 50 employees Yes for companies with 11 or more employees
Penalties for employers not providing insurance: $750 per employee for companies with over 50 employees $295 per employee for companies with over 11 employees

Subsidized insurance: Yes; for anyone earning up to 400% of poverty level Yes; for anyone earning up to 300% of poverty level. Free for anyone earning up to 150% of poverty level.

Young adults: Children stay on parents' plan until 26 Children can stay on parents’ plan until age 26 or until they have not been a dependent for 2 years – whichever is sooner.

Benefit limits: Forbidden on both annual and lifetime basis Not forbidden, although most MA insurers do not place limits

Retroactive rescinding of coverage: Forbidden Forbidden

Pre-existing conditions: Insurers required to cover Insurers required to cover, but can limit coverage of certain conditions to 6 months

Preventative care: Free Co-pay, but must be covered without a deductible

Contraception: Included under free preventative care Not mentioned
Effective date: March 23, 2010, Specific provisions phased in through to 2020 April 12, 2006

In many ways Romney’s healthcare plan was more liberal than Obama’s.
1. The tax penalty was greater for not having insurance ($1,200 vs. $695).
2. Employers with significantly less employees were required to provide insurance (11 vs. 50)
3. Romney’s plan was free for anyone making less than 150% of the poverty level. (Obama’s plan wasn’t free for anyone but extended subsidies
up to 400% of poverty level vs. 300% for Romney.

Obama’s plan was more liberal in some ways.
1. Insurers required to cover pre-existing conditions without qualification whereas Romney’s plan can limit coverage of certain conditions to 6 months.

All in all I’d say the plans were very similar. Of course all Romney could say during the election was that Obamacare was significantly more liberal than his and would be repealed immediately after he took office.

ROMNEYCARE ISN'T DESTROYING MA. WHY DO YOU SAY OBAMACARE WILL DESTROY THE COUNTRY? WHAT WILL DESTROY AMERICA IS UNTHINKING, ANTI-RATIONAL PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE LED BLINDLY BY FOX NEWS AND RUSH LIMBAUGH.

Nice post and good luck, they hate arguing facts. However, they love propaganda. What are the five most important rules of propaganda.http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/thinking-out-loud/the-five-rules-of-propaganda-3338
-- The rule of simplification: reducing all data to a simple confrontation between ‘Good and Bad’, ‘Friend and Foe’.
--The rule of disfiguration: discrediting the opposition by crude smears and parodies.
-- The rule of transfusion: manipulating the consensus values of the target audience for one’s own ends.
-- The rule of unanimity: presenting one’s viewpoint as if it were the unanimous opinion of all right-thinking people: draining the doubting individual into agreement by the appeal of star-performers, by social pressure, and by ‘psychological contagion’.
-- The rule of orchestration: endlessly repeating the same messages in different variations and combinations.

Another bunch of lies and innuendo from the people whose profits will be reduced under the new Health Care Laws. Of course the people who live in the GOP bubble and watch FOX news just eat this BS up. It also does not help that the law is commonly refered to as Obamacare and Obama being the first black president is always on a socialist adgenda according to the sore losers of the 2008 and 2012 elections. Hopefully the electorate will wake up next year and vote out the crazies from the teaparty. Only then can there be a chance for Government to work again.

LOL! That's rich, coming from (if I may so assume) a supporter of one of the most effective / dedicated fascists (Status Quo-Bama) of our time!

Fascism = marriage of business interests + militaristic government + mandated monopolies... and the insurance industry WROTE this dream legislation for their own benefit.

Obama = Bush. Don't think so? Howz about that NDAA? Drone killing of a US citizen? Another heaping helping of Patriot Act (contrary to his promise in the election of 2008, for which I voted for him)? Keeping Gitmo open? More warmongering abroad? FINES for people who cannot afford this healthcare? More bailouts for bankers? NO criminal charges for fraudster banks / financials on Wall Street (Too Big To Prosecute)? Dubya Bush in blackface?

Wake up, clown. When has government "worked" for US citizens lately? Pray thee, do tell! Government only "works" for the corporate elites / military-industrial complex / Monsanto types... at the expense (financial AND sacrificed liberties) of you and me (well, unless you're on the dole...).

Dissent against government policy is the highest form of patriotism, fyi. Dissenters gotcha feelin' down? Sore feet? Perhaps your fascist stormtrooper boots are the wrong size. Better yet, kick them off and rejoin those who have respect for the sanctity of free choice and individual liberty.

Do you know what is wrong with libertarians? The Republicans tell you they are libertarians and you are so stupid you believe them. You are probably some lower middle class smuck who drank the kool aide and now are convinced you want lower taxes on the rich because some day you will be rich too. You need to wake up and smell the BS that you put out with that last post.

DonDurbin, you sound like an angry little democrat. End defined EXACTLY what fascism means. If this does not reflect the direction the US is headed in (started by Bush, accelerated by Obama) to you, you are not capable of unbiased, logical examination of facts.

I assume your comment about "government working again" implies the government should monitor and control every aspect of our lives? Personally, I believe in liberty, but you seem to prefer fascism.

Have a nice day and try to stay away from the FOX news...it just seems to make you angry!

Thank you, Jason! I appreciate your back-up, although you've identified one of the most frustrating problems with which we must deal: people "not capable of unbiased, logical examination of facts". (*Sigh* Do we merely waste our time? I suppose not; it's at least worthwhile "practice" and mental exercise sparring with such types.) Good luck!

As an aside, it's simultaneously funny and sad that back when I came up with this screen name / ID / whatever, I was an Obama supporter (in '08... and obviously oblivious, too). My most liberal friends thought it was great (One even asked if he could silk it onto a T-shirt.). Now however, they no longer appreciate it / "get it". They simply refuse to accept that there is any possibility that Obama--still the man of their dreams apparently--could serve the Corrupt Corporatocracy in any way. It is heart-breaking when good, intelligent people actively choose ignorance and emotionalism over knowledge and reason: they still profess to love this charismatic and eloquent Puppet-In-Chief even though the policies he endorses / enacts are slowly imprisoning them, snuffing out their future hopes and dreams. : (

Oh, Don, you ignorant liberal. Have you seen the recent profits for the health insurance companies? They are booming. Have you seen the projections (by management) for health insurance companies? They are booming.

You ignorant liberals just got sold down the river by Obama to the big corporations. The great thing is you're smiling about it the whole way! The whole system will become bifurcated. The wealthy in private, high grade care; the rest in public, low grade care. I am really, REALLY trying to get into the wealthy category before I get old and require care!

When will you people wake up and see that government and big business are in bed together against us, the people. Doesn't matter if it's elephants or donkeys. They are all on the same team...more government rules and more goodies for their supporters. Don, you keep on thinking that the GOP is evil (they are) while your boy sells you down the river. Keep wearing that smile!

Less government is the only answer. The Founders understood this. Why do we not understand this today?

Correction Don - Obama is the first half-white president. If the description fits George Zimmerman then it can fit Obama too.

Picture this:
-- 50 to 85 million fatalities
-- All of Europe and Japan wiped out economically.
-- United States is strapped with helping rebuild much of the world
-- A huge cold war is building between the remaining superpowers
-- The United States and much of the world has much higher debt levels than today.
-- The year, 1945
Or
-- We have a major economic crisis every 15 years or so, and toss a civil war in there.

Yes, times have been so much worse. We are not building nuclear fallout shelters for everyone, just healthcare and paying down debt.

No one is paying down debt. The outstanding debt continues to rise, every single year. You do know that unfunded future liabliities are well in excess of $50 trillion and counting,......... don't you? Do you understand terms such as parabolic growth, and exponential growth, and how those terms relate to sustainability? What don't you get that simply the interest on $17 trillion yearly when rates get back to 5%, will exceed what is spent on national defense? Never mind, the dumbing down wins.

Funnily enough, the authors of this hit piece republished something they read without the slightest hint of fact checking. Looking for Insurance in Seattle on the internet gives you a price range for a family of 4 between $370 and $1500, with no difference whatsoever between an immediate start date and November.

"Jeff Smith from Seattle summed it up nicely in a Wall Street Journal letter on June 12:

"I was going to leave my job… to start a business until I shopped around for a healthcare plan: At Group Health, a health-maintenance organization in Seattle, I was given a quote of $842 per month for me and my family. But that would increase to $2,320 starting in January 2014 when Obamacare kicks in—a 276% increase. "

It is true that there are probably a couple right-wing institutions that will exaggerate for political purposes, but if you are in Seattle and you need health insurance for a family of 4, you can find some decent policies around $500 a month or so. If Mr. Smith can't find a policy cheaper than $2320 a month, then it is probably good that he didn't try to start his own business because he would never survive anyway.

"Single-payer proponents no longer use this term, since the public has clearly and consistently opposed it."

The only public in the world that opposes this is by coincidence the only one in the world that has had a massive advertising/smear campaign against it. If you look at the facts, the US lags way behind the rest of the world in Health Care quality while paying twice as much for that honor.

The average Canadian pays 4,000 dollars in taxes for health care and that pays all the bills. The average American pays 4,000 dollars in taxes for health care and that only buys him the right to pay another 3,500 for premiums, deductibles, and uncovered conditions.

When people talk about insurance premiums going up what they are really talking about is fraudulent "short term" health insurance no longer being offered due to the pre-existing condition clause. Before last year, you could buy an insurance policy that, assume a year of Jan 1 to Dec 31 gives you coverage only for medical bills occurring during that period. That means that if you discover that you have cancer on Dec 15, then you have 2 weeks to cure your cancer before they say "hasta la vista" and you are on your own. Of course, without the new pre-existing condition rule, good luck getting them to renew you or finding another policy now that you have cancer.

This is fundamentally what the person who wrote this article is fighting for. The right for private companies to collectively charge twice as much as anywhere else in the developed world for substandard and dishonest service. Every reader of this article should be asking how he or she gets paid and who pays him or her.

This article loses all credibility with the first two items on the top ten list. If you want a real analysis compare healthcare spending as a percent of GDP, outcome based metrics (results/quality), and satisfaction ratings.

See the link below for a comparison of health care cost as a percent of GDP.

More than one billion people on the planet live under a healthcare mandate and/or single payer system, not including the U.S..

The question you need to ask is why an employer would even want the liability of your healthcare tied to his business? Does that make any sense at all, no not really. Usually employers run scared from open ended liabilities.

1. Your private insurance premiums will cost more and more each year.
Seriously? Is the person who wrote this statement aware of our previous health care cost increases, say over the last thirty five years?

2. You will lose the choices and flexibility in health insurance policies that we have had available up until now.
This is like saying I won't be able to go to the loan shark to borrow money. It's completely ridiculous. Yes, garbage policies will no longer be allowed.

You make some excellent points here. Republicans are terrified right now. Not of increased health care costs under Obamacare, but of *decreased* costs, and with the cost reductions starting to come in from states like California they are in full-blown panic mode as this article shows.

"Temporarily suspends the requirement that health insurers and HMOs (insurers) obtain approval from the OIR (Office Insurance Regulation) for nongrandfathered health plans (for which rates must be filed with the HHS) for plan years 2014 and 2015. Insurers would still be required to file rates and rate changes for such plans with the OIR prior to use, but such rates could be used without the OIR approval. For this two-year period, the rates for nongrandfathered plans would be exempt from all rating requirements. These rating law changes are repealed on March 1, 2015. Under the PPACA, insurers must file rate changes with the HHS for nongrandfathered health plans, subject to review and determination of whether the rate increase is unreasonable. Grandfathered health plans are not subject to the PPACA rate filing requirements and would remain subject to the current Florida law requirements for filing rates for approval with the OIR."

The evolution of civilizations is: Slavery to Revolution to Freedom & Liberty to Democracy to Socialism to Communism and back to Slavery. The US is making the transition into the Socialism stage currently. It has been happening from 1930 to current. I am very thankful that I have lived a little over 25% of a little over half my lifetime with for the most part, Freedom & Liberty. I really am saddened for my children and future grandchildren that they will never actually have Freedom and Liberty. There is a book called Mega Trends and in it stated (about 20 years agoe) that America' free republic would be taken over in some other form and that it would be some kind of ISM. How about Groupism, Socialism, Communism, Multi Culturalism. It all leads to Communism in my opinion. So life is too short and I plan on enjoying ride regardless. There is nothing anyone can do about it except plan for the worst and hope for the best. This was a great commentary and read. Thank You Adam! Always have a plan and work the plan.

"The evolution of civilizations is: Slavery to Revolution to Freedom & Liberty to Democracy to Socialism to Communism and back to Slavery. "

Actually, our economy grew more under 12 years of FDR and the new deal (1933-1945) then it did under all the republican presidents of the last century combined (48 years). This is very easy to go and check yourself at the BLS. In fact, almost everything bad that has been happening in this country started in the 1980s under Reagan. Look up graphs of our national debt, our incarceration rate, our trade deficit, and our growth rate. The only thing that is better since Reagan is the stock market and our ability to experience the adrenaline rush of asset bubbles.

Consider that out of every 5 people in prison today, 4 would be walking free if this was 1980. What would you say to those 4 people?

Jeff, wrong on all accounts. The greatest president whom helped pull the economy out of a recession within one year WAS, Drum Roll Please, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU . And now you know the real solution to a anemic growing economy. A DEMOCRAT! GO FIGURE! Every Democrat president from that point on was a complete Dumazz and doesn't know Sheet from Shinola about economics. HEHE

What a load of absolute rubbish. Some people in America bandy the word "Socialism" around as if it's in the same group of words as "pedophile." Unrestrained capitalism, unfettered influence from corporate lobbyists and support from the ignorant victims of this destruction of American democracy has created a nation with the greatest inequality between the haves and the have nots. Socialist policies seek to redress this imbalance and make society a place for people to live in rather than society being a collection of labor product to be constantly reduced to the lowest cost per unit. If you want America to be great again there has to be a separation of the church and the corporate interests from politics. Society has to be about all of the people who live in it and not just about profit for corporations. That requires socialist thinking and policies.

• The major components of the state and federal law are similar, but details vary. The federal law put a greater emphasis on cost-control measures, for instance. Massachusetts is just now tackling that.
• The state law was successful on one big goal: A little more than 98 percent of state residents now have insurance.
• Claims that the law is “bankrupting” the state are greatly exaggerated. Costs rose more quickly than expected in the first few years, but are now in line with what the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation had estimated.
• Small-business owners are perhaps the least happy stakeholders. Cheaper health plans for them through the state exchange haven’t materialized, as they hoped.
• Despite claims to the contrary, there’s no clear evidence that the law had an adverse effect on waiting times. In fact, 62 percent of physicians say it didn’t.
• Public support has been high. One poll found that 68.5 percent of nonelderly adults supported the law in 2006; 67 percent still do.

We have a precedent to look at. That's RomneyCare in MA. To my knowledge that is working out well. I'm not aware that it has destroyed either the healthcare system or the lives of a significant number of people there. In fact, it's dramatically improved the lives of a lot of people who otherwise could not obtain healthcare. Can we discuss facts rather than a biased partisan tirade against a president that you hate? You hate anything that Obama or the Democrats stand for, correct?

Amazing how we Canadians have a longer life expectancy than you Americans, in spite of our compulsory Universal Medicare
and our inability to pay for services outside that plan as mandated by the Canada Health Act.

I am always amazed how wealthy white guys are always bashing universal healthcare or managed healthcare. These rich, connected types don't have to worry about healthcare costs since they just write a check. But when upwards of 50 million can't afford healthcare and healthcare for 10 of millions more is making them financial strapped and underinsured they simply repeat the Sarah Palin mantra and go their merry way without offering ANYTHING of substance or value. Nothing.

I'm not a big fan of Obamacare, but I think Obamacare has some great advances; you can't be turned down for preexisting conditions, you can't be dropped if you get sick, children can tag along on their parents healthcare for some extra time, it increases competition for services, it shines some light on one of the most profitable, yet administratively burdensome corporate cartels, and it puts a cap on corporate healthcare cartel waste.

Your types are worried about ghosts and shadows when you can easily afford to buy as much insurance as needed or travel abroad for care and write it off on your taxes as a business expense.

Stop with the fear it all nonsense and offer some solutions. The US is the most expensive country in the world for healthcare and the results are in the middle of the pack. The health insurance cartel is more concerned about profit than heath and you simply whine that you may have to adjust your healthcare 'freedom' expectations. The number one cause of bankruptcy in US is from medical costs and you offer zero solutions. Enjoy your retreats to conferences and lofty, but blinded positions, sonce you are no more than a channel of fear without any solution.

please stick to financial markets. You are so far off track about health care and how it does not work in USA. we have the costliest system in the world by far. yet in many ways like longevity, causes of early death and the tens of millions who are uninsured and rely on emergency rooms for health care we look so bad in comparison. check infant mortality in other advanced countries compared with US. we are way behind the ball. our system needs massive overhauling .

We do indeed have a costly system. Why? You and Grant Clark seem to think it's due to health insurance company profiteering. Here's a fact for you: University of Michigan economist Mark Perry calculated that... the industry average profit margin would have been closer to 3 percent — $100 per policy. Other studies put health insurer margins at 3.5%

So we can conclude that eliminating private, for profit health insurance *might* lower premiums by 3% in the year it is done. Afterwards? You guessed it, spiking premiums from the not-for profits (more than a 1/3 of the market) and government plans (almost 1/2 of the market). Why? Because COSTS are increasing!

I would hope that everyone on this site understands costs driving premiums... Why is Canada cheaper for medical services? Perhaps, malpractice premiums play a role! Perhaps, drug costs play a role! We can (and maybe should) vilify lawyers and pharmaceutical companies, but seriously get off the insurance industry. They are not the problem; they are Obama's straw man.

FYI, I am not connected to the health care field and never have been. I am a CPA employed at a construction company.

Jason R I would hope that everyone on this site understands English and is able to not only read English words but is also able to comprehend their meaning before responding to my post. Where in my posts did I indicate that I " seem to think it's due to health insurance company profiteering?"

If the cost is not due to the (somewhat) private nature of our medical system, what do you attribute the reasons for our high costs and mediocre outcomes? By your reply, I can assume that you think private health care/insurance is not to blame then? You must believe government and regulation is the problem? Do you propose more government as the solution then?

I don't understand your point. Maybe all you wanted to do was bash Adam and his site? That's your right. I would suggest you leave the site if you don't like the content.